********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
)
In the Matter of ) File Number: EB-08-LA-0051
Orvac Electronics, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No: 200832900004
Fullerton, California ) FRN: 0017705658
)
)
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: May 27, 2009 Released: May 29, 2009
By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Orvac Electronics,
Inc. ("Orvac"), in Fullerton, California, for willful and repeated
violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). On May 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles
Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") to
Orvac after determining that Orvac marketed non-certified 2.4 GHz
wireless video transmitters and wireless cameras (intentional
radiators). In this Order, we consider Orvac's argument that the
devices at issue were registered with the FCC.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On November 22, 2006, an agent from the Los Angeles Office inspected
Orvac's retail store in Fullerton, California, and observed several
models of uncertified wireless cameras and stand alone video
transmitters on display and for sale. A review of the Commission's
records revealed these devices had not received an equipment
authorization from the Commission, which is required for transceivers
operating on these frequencies. Wireless video cameras and other short
range 2.4 GHz video transmitters are classified as intentional
radiators under the Commission's Rules and must be certified and
labeled with an FCC I.D. number pursuant to the Commission's Rules.
3. On January 23, 2007, the Los Angeles Office issued a Citation to Orvac
for violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of
the Commission's Rules by marketing uncertified wireless cameras and
stand alone video transmitters. The Citation warned Orvac that future
violations may subject Orvac to substantial monetary forfeitures,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal
sanctions, including imprisonment. The Los Angeles Office did not
receive a response from Orvac, but the U.S. Postal Service did return
a delivery receipt indicating that Orvac had received the Citation.
4. On March 8, 2007, an agent from the Los Angeles Office inspected
Orvac's retail store in Fullerton, California, and observed one
uncertified wireless video camera on display, model CTSL 15-2400 CTSL,
manufactured by Cop Security, which operated on 2.4 GHz.
5. On March 5, 2008, a Los Angeles agent again inspected Orvac's retail
store in Fullerton, California, and observed three models of wireless
cameras, Speco Technologies model WC-2503, and Cop Security models
2400 CTSL and 2400 CTJ on display and for sale. All of these wireless
cameras operated on 2.4 GHz. Additionally, the agent observed a
stand-alone video transmitter, WIV model TRX-20, which also operated
on 2.4 GHz, on display and for sale.
6. On March 6, 2008, the Los Angeles agent reviewed the Commission's
databases and found no record of FCC certifications for Speco
Technologies model WC-2503, Cop Security models 2400 CTSL and 2400
CTJ, and WIV model TRX-20.
7. On April 4, 2008, the Los Angeles agent again inspected Orvac's retail
store in Fullerton, California, and observed the three models of
wireless cameras, Speco Technologies model WC-2503, and Cop Security
models 2400 CTSL and 2400 CTJ, on display and for sale. The agent also
observed the stand-alone video transmitter, WIV model TRX-20, on
display and for sale.
8. On May 30, 2008, the Los Angeles Office issued a NAL in the amount of
$7,000 to Orvac. In the NAL, the Los Angeles Office found that Orvac
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the
Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing non-certified
2.4 GHz wireless video transmitters and wireless cameras (intentional
radiators). Orvac filed a response on June 16, 2008 ("Response"). In
its Response, Orvac does not dispute that it marketed all of the
COP-USA, Speco and WIV models listed above and in the NAL. Instead,
Orvac states that it sells "wireless product registered with the FCC,"
references FCC Identifier NK2-2400 and provides a 2006 FCC Equipment
Authorization Grant for FCC Identifier TW4-906T issued to Shenzhen AEE
Technology Co., Ltd., for a 2.4 GHz Wireless Camera ("Shenzhen
Grant"), along with a "LVD Report" for Shenzhen AEE Technology Co.,
LTD Model ZT-906T and an "EMC Test Report" for Models ZT-906T and
ZT-903T.
III. DISCUSSION
9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining
the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission
take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
such matters as justice may require.
10. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section
2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that "[e]xcept as provided elsewhere
in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or
lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or
distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale
or lease, any radio frequency device unless in the case of a device
subject to certification such device has been authorized by the
Commission and is properly identified and labeled as required by S:
2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter . . . ."
11. In its Response, Orvac includes the Shenzhen Grant, and the referenced
reports, regarding a 2.4 GHz wireless camera for FCC ID TW4-906T which
covers Shenzhen Models Number ZT-906T and ZT-903T. Orvac does not
explain why or how the Shenzhen Grant for FCC ID TW4-906T covers any
of the Speco Technology, Cop Security or WIV devices listed in the
NAL. Orvac also includes an email message from a COP-USA Regional
Sales Director which states that "[t]he FCC number pertains to all of
the 3 items since they share the same module 10mW unit. FCC
authorization is NK2-2400." The email then lists the following three
model numbers of what appear to be COP-USA devices: 15-2400CTSL,
2400CTSL, 2400CTJ. Review of the Commission's Office of Engineering
and Technology website reveals that the NK2-2400 authorization was
granted to "CIC Components Ind Co Ltd" ("CIC" Grant"). Orvac provides
no specific information regarding the WIV wireless video transmitter
specified in the NAL.
12. Although Orvac does not detail in its Response why it believes that
the Shenzhen Grant or the CIC Grant cover any of the devices cited by
the Los Angeles Office, we have reviewed the Shenzhen Grant and the
CIC Grant as well as their underlying documentation. To the extent
Orvac is arguing that the wireless cameras covered by the Shenzhen
Grant or the CIC Grant have been authorized as modular transmitters,
we see no documentation or remarks on the Shenzhen Grant or the CIC
Grant to support such an argument. If, on the other hand, Orvac is
arguing that the Shenzhen Grant covers the Speco WC-2503 camera, and
the CIC Grant covers the COP-USA wireless cameras, models 2400 CTSL
and 2400 CTJ, we note that none of the devices cited by the Los
Angeles Office bore the labeling required by Section 2.803(a)(1) of
the Commission's Rules. This rule requires, among other things, that
the device be properly identified and labeled with its "FCC Identifier
consisting of the two elements [including grantee code and the
equipment product code] preceded by the term FCC ID in capital letters
on a single line." At the time of the inspections by the Los Angeles
agent, such FCC ID numbers were not visible to the agent for any of
the COP-USA, Speco or WIV devices inspected. Based on the evidence
provided by Orvac, we are unable to determine if the devices cited by
the Los Angeles Office are certified. Even assuming that the Shenzhen
Grant or CIC Grant ultimately are revealed to cover the models at
issue, Orvac has provided no evidence that the WIV model that it
marketed was certified by the Commission.
13. We have examined the Response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory
factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy
Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that Orvac willfully
and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section
2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Considering the entire record and the
factors listed above, we find that neither reduction nor cancellation
of the proposed $7,000 forfeiture is warranted.
14. In the NAL, the Los Angeles Office also required Orvac to report to
the Los Angeles Office, no more than thirty (30) days following the
release of the NAL, how it achieved compliance with Section 302(b) of
the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The report was required
to include the names, addresses and contact information of the
wholesaler, importer, and manufacturer of each of the devices listed
in the NAL, along with the invoice for each device. Orvac's report was
also required to be submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or
declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by a principal, officer
or director of Orvac, attesting to the truth and accuracy of the
response. As of the date of this Order, no such report has been
received. We direct Orvac to file the required report within 30 days
of the date of this Order with the District Director, Los Angeles
Office. Failure to comply with this directive may result in additional
sanctions against Orvac.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111,
0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Orvac Electronics,
Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for
willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and
Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 403 of the Act, that Orvac
Electronics, Inc., must submit the report described in paragraph 14,
above, within no more than thirty (30) days following the release of
this NAL, to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement
Bureau, Western Region, Los Angeles Office, 18000 Studebaker Rd.,
Suite 660, Cerritos, California 90703, and must include the NAL/Acct.
No. referenced in the caption.
17. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case
may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant
to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account
Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money
order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be
sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be
made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account
number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other
ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type
code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be
sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact
the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Orvac
Electronics, Inc., at its address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Rebecca L. Dorch
Regional Director, Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1).
This included models manufactured by Cop Security and LYD.
Such devices are intentional radiators and must be certificated by the
Commission prior to marketing. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 15.201.
47 C.F.R. S: 2.925.
Citation to Orvac Electronics, released January 23, 2007 ("Citation").
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3).
See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 501, 503(b), 510.
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832900004
(Enf. Bur., Western Region, Los Angeles Office, released May 30, 2008).
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1).
See Public Notice: Part 15 Unlicensed Modular Transmitter Approval, 15 FCC
Rcd 25415 (OET 2000) ("OET Public Notice") (describing the requirements
and policies for the authorization of unlicensed, low power "transmitter
modules" for operation under Part 15 of the Commission's Rules). See also,
Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules for Unlicensed
Devices and Equipment Approval, 22 FCC Rcd 8028 (2007) (Codifying most of
the OET Public Notice, in Section 15.212 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. S: 15
212)).
Applicants are required to submit a cover letter requesting modular
approval and address the eight requirements detail in the Public Notice.
"If approved, the grant of equipment authorization for a transmitter
module will have either the word "module" or "modular" added to the
Remarks section on the grant." OET Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25418.
We note that the NAL did not specify the part of Section 2.803(a)(1)
concerning labeling because, at the time of the Los Angeles agent's
investigation, the only labels apparent to the agent on the devices
concerned COP-USA, Speco and WIV. The devices did not contain any
certification information or other information from the Shenzhen Grant or
CIC Grant.
47 C.F.R. S: 2.925, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1).
Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this inquiry
is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. 18
U.S.C. S:S: 1001 et seq; see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.17.
47 U.S.C. S:S: 302a(b), 503(b), 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4),
2.803(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 403.
47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1198
1
1
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1198